Which one would have a higher chance?

Applying to College
1

<p>Assuming a student has taken the hardest classes possible and gets straight As, which would give him a higher chance of getting into an ivy league? 1. Best cross country runner in your high school and winning a lot of trophies, or 2. A national master at chess (2200+ uscf rating) and winning a bunch of major chess tournaments.</p>

2

<h1>2 obviously</h1>

3

<p>2# since they are a national master, whereas every high school is bound to have a “best cross country runner” and some of those may very well have won numerous trophies</p>

4

<p>not enough information. if the athlete is a gregarious leader who contributes in the classroom and the chess player is a socially immature introvert (this comes through in recommendations and interviews) an ivy might well select the athlete</p>

5

<p>Neither has done anything so outstanding that an Ivy would be panting to enroll the student. Both are well qualified, obviously, and the decision will depend on what “slots” the admissions committee wants to fill when looking at the applications; and that will also depend on what else is learned about what the two applicants each will bring to the campus. Remember–the admissions committee is not looking at just those two applicants and saying , should we take A or B? They are not in competition with each other but rather with the entire applicant pool.</p>

6

<p>I think people are more inclined to say #2. I think I read about this in a blog… “Accomplishments that are hard to explain can be much more impressive than accomplishments that are simply hard to do.”</p>

<p>From [How</a> to Get Into Stanford with B’s on Your Transcript: Failed Simulations & the Surprising Psychology of Impressiveness](<a href=“http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/03/26/how-to-get-into-stanford-with-bs-on-your-transcript-failed-simulations-the-surprising-psychology-of-impressiveness]How”>How to Get Into Stanford with B's on Your Transcript: Failed Simulations & the Surprising Psychology of Impressiveness - Cal Newport)</p>

<p>But I agree with boysx3, both are well qualified.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>You are making this:

seem unimpressive. It is actually an unbelievable achievement for a high schooler; Even the majority of adults couldn’t pull this off</p>

8

<p>

</p>

<p>Just saying, I can also argue this for being the best cross country winner in your high school and winning a lot of trophies.</p>

<p>Both are impressive accomplishments.</p>

9

<p>boysx3, what do you mean NEITHER of these are that impressive? How many national master do you see at your school?</p>

10

<p>If the athlete were recruited by the school, he’d win hands down.</p>

11

<p>^That’s true, but not <em>every</em> cross country runner is going to be recruited; however, the national master is a very appealing achievement</p>

12

<p>Cross country isn’t a “money” sport. Obviously the national chess champion is 100x superior.</p>

13

<p>He’s not the national chess champion…he has a national ranking of Master… which is two notches below from Grandmaster.</p>

14

<p>I think what LaTina is trying to say that although both are very impressive, nothing (short of ridding the planet of disease, solving world hunger, etc) is going to guarantee an acceptance into the Ivy League.</p>

15

<p>I think boysx3 meant to say that. I said that both are very impressive, and being ranked a Master at chess may or may not be much more impressive than being a cross country star.</p>

<p>I also pointed out that people will be inclined to choose the chess master, because of the “failed simulation” theory.</p>